Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

I accept the fourfold objective enunciated by Dulles.

For those who may not remember the four objectives they are: retribution, rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence.

You have already stated that retribution - which is the primary objective of all punishment - does not require the death of one who murders. Retribution alone (according to you) does not justify the death penalty; a person who kills another does not deserve to die because of that crime.

That leaves rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence and I’m guessing you’re not going to argue that we should execute someone to effect his rehabilitation, which leaves only defense and deterrence. As for deterrence, if you choose that one then you would have to support an increase in the use of capital punishment so I’m guessing you’re not going there either.

This leaves defense and this brings us right back to the comments that started this discussion. If you support executions as necessary to defend society then you are in fact supporting preemptive defense. Your position would be that a person deserves to be executed because he would probably kill in the future even as you reject the idea that he deserves to be executed for having actually killed in the past.

If a person does not deserve to die for having committed murder then how can he deserve to die to preempt him from committing murder, and if he does not deserve to die then on what basis do you support his execution? Once you reject retributive justice as the basis for the punishment you have nothing left with which to justify it.

It is the need for retribution that justifies punishment.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Sooooooo if I understand you correctly, the Catholic bishops in the U.S. no longer adhere to the Catholic faith? Pope John Paul did not adhere to the Catholic faith? The Church has never been wrong about anything?

You haven’t been following the conversation here, have you? My point is just that your suggestion - “what is the Church is wrong?” - suggests that you’re missing your own point here: “the Church” is not wrong to teach something if that’s not what the Church teaches in the first place.

The CC’s teaching on the death penalty is not infallible.

[What’s your point?]

When conscience goes against a fallible teaching of the Catholic Church, it is our duty to follow our conscience and to speak out in order to change Church teachings. WE ARE the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Truth works in all of the faithful to lead us to the right conclusions, and sometimes, what has long been accepted Church teaching turns out to be wrong. It is our duty to speak up when this is the case in order to bring about change. This is historically true. If everyone blindly followed every single Church teaching, many errors would still be perpetuated today.

And you seem to be missing a rather important point here: our first duty as Catholics is to form our consciences in accordance with the mind of the Church, NOT to presumptively regard our own consciences as having some kind of natural superior insight that ought to be applied to reforming the Church. Following a well-formed conscience requires that we not simply follow our own conscience, and that we respect even fallible Church teaching. Right?

 

[Betterave]

For every study you cited above, I can find 5 that say the opposite. Let me know if you’re interested.

I’m interested, not in the 5-to-1 challenge (that’s just uncontructive posturing), but please, give us some counter-evidence to Dudley’s claims and let’s see what we can make of it.

 

[Ender]

"Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”
A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005

The Catholic bishops in the United States have been calling for an end to the use of the death penalty for more than twenty-five years. In 2005, they invited Catholics to join them in an ongoing “Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.”

If capital punishment is unjust then why do the bishops “invite” Catholics to oppose it? They surely do not invite us to oppose abortion, they state flatly that it is immoral. Why don’t they say the same thing about the death penalty? And instead of calling for an end to its use why don’t they just call it unjust? The answer is obvious: it isn’t immoral and they can’t call it that. They may oppose its use but they cannot deny what the Church teaches: it is a just punishment for certain crimes and the State is justified in applying it.

The CC’s teaching on the death penalty is not infallible.

This is a good bit less clear than you think, as the comment by Archbishop Chaput suggests.

When conscience goes against a fallible teaching of the Catholic Church, it is our duty to follow our conscience and to speak out in order to change Church teachings.

I think you attribute too much to your conscience.

*“To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience.” *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor)

(CCC 1792) … assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

WE ARE the Catholic Church.

Yes, we are - just not in the sense you use here.

*"… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." *(JPII, Dei Verbum)

Ender

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If capital punishment is unjust then why do the bishops “invite” Catholics to oppose it? They surely do not invite us to oppose abortion, they state flatly that it is immoral. Why don’t they say the same thing about the death penalty? And instead of calling for an end to its use why don’t they just call it unjust? The answer is obvious: it isn’t immoral and they can’t call it that. They may oppose its use but they cannot deny what the Church teaches: it is a just punishment for certain crimes and the State is justified in applying it.
This is a good bit less clear than you think, as the comment by Archbishop Chaput suggests.
I think you attribute too much to your conscience.

*“To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience.” *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor)

(CCC 1792) … assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
Yes, we are - just not in the sense you use here.

*"… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." *(JPII, Dei Verbum)

Ender

Would you oppose something you thought was moral and just? Clearly, these bishops believe capital punishment to be immoral and unjust or they would not oppose it. Of course they are not going to directly contradict the Vatican by calling it flat-out immoral, but it is obvious that this is what they believe it to be. As I said, Rome works slowly and these bishops are waiting for the conscientious faithful, through whom the Spirit of Truth is at work, to voice their opposition of the death penalty.

JP2 was right. Conscience is not always 100% accurate. Neither is the Church. That does not mean that we can simply ignore the value of either. Geez.

Think about it. If every Catholic, bishops and popes included, always gave full assent to every Church teaching, like it or not, the Church would never have changed her views on slavery and a hundred other things that we now know to be wrong. We are the faithful and it is our duty to work with the Church and through the Holy Spirit to guide her away from error. This is and has always been true. It WILL always be true.

(CCC 1792) … assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

The operative phrase is loud and clear in your own citation. CAN BE, not IS.

Taking random quotes and half-sentences and ellipses and using them as a basis for an argument is problematic to say the least.

 

[dudleysharp]

For every study you cited above, I can find 5 that say the opposite. Let me know if you’re interested…

First, I am not interested only because I have likley read many of the studies which haven’t found for deterrence.

What they say. Did you know:

1. None of those said “executions deters no one”. They cannot.
2. Those studies did not find evidence of deterrence, but did not exclude deterrence.
3. None contradict the truism that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. The death penalty is the most severe negative outcome which a criminal may face.
4. Deterrence may have been too small a factor to measure, but not so small as to not exist

Secondly, I have only listed the 25 studies finding for deterrence since the year 2000. None before that.

The question is not does the death penalty deter. Of course it does. The question is:

"Will there ever be a concensus on the measurable effect of that deterrence? No.

2000 years ago, we did not have a prison system that could safely incarcerate all murderers and even segregate them from the rest of the prison population. Things change

Religious scholars have been aware of the imprisonment of prisoners going back at least 4000 years. As we all know, prisoners get out, escape, harm in prison and out, using cell phones and agents to assist in free world crimes.

My CONSCIENCE is what guides my position now.

Exactly, your conscience, not Catholic teachungs. Why does you conscience find against the execution of some for vile crimes?

Believe me, the Church is always slow to change with the times. She WILL reverse her stance on the death penalty.

The Chuch is not to change with the times, but is to always proclaim the truth.

I and others agree, in that we think the changes of EV and the newest catechism will revert back to the traditional teachings of the Church, unencumberred by contradiction.

 

[Betterave]

For those who may not remember the four objectives they are: retribution, rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence.

A quick word about these four: Retribution is necessarily primarily (though not exclusively) in God’s hands (“vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”). Rehabilitation is directed primarily to the good of the offender. Defense and deterrence are directed primarily to the good of society. All goods must be duly weighed in deciding upon an appropriate punishment for a given offense. Agree?

You have already stated that retribution - which is the primary objective of all punishment - does not require the death of one who murders. Retribution alone (according to you) does not justify the death penalty; a person who kills another does not deserve to die because of that crime.

To be clear, Ender, once again you have misunderstood: perfectly just retribution does require death - and this is true for all sin. The retributive function of secular justice, however, does not require death as a strict matter of justice, otherwise the state would have an interest in executing most of us, e.g., those with hatred in their hearts (see the Sermon on the Mount). All secular sanctions are retributive, but are embraced specifically as a judicious form of retribution consonant with maintaining social order. A person who kills another intentionally and without justifying circumstances does deserve to die because of that crime. It does not follow that the state is required to execute him.

That leaves rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence and I’m guessing you’re not going to argue that we should execute someone to effect his rehabilitation,

Ironically, that could be a reason in favor of execution (though obviously not a sufficient reason in itself), since it is possible that execution can give a clear opportunity and motivation for repentance.

 

[Betterave]

Would you oppose something you thought was moral and just? Clearly, these bishops believe capital punishment to be immoral and unjust or they would not oppose it. Of course they are not going to directly contradict the Vatican by calling it flat-out immoral, but it is obvious that this is what they believe it to be. As I said, Rome works slowly and these bishops are waiting for the conscientious faithful, through whom the Spirit of Truth is at work, to voice their opposition of the death penalty.

JP2 was right. Conscience is not always 100% accurate. Neither is the Church. That does not mean that we can simply ignore the value of either. Geez.

Think about it. If every Catholic, bishops and popes included, always gave full assent to every Church teaching, like it or not, the Church would never have changed her views on slavery and a hundred other things that we now know to be wrong. We are the faithful and it is our duty to work with the Church and through the Holy Spirit to guide her away from error. This is and has always been true. It WILL always be true.

The operative phrase is loud and clear in your own citation. CAN BE, not IS.

Taking random quotes and half-sentences and ellipses and using them as a basis for an argument is problematic to say the least.

Thoughtfulone, this is not very thoughtful. Ender’s quotes are not simply random and there is nothing intrinsically problematic about quotes, half-sentences, and ellipses, especially when you note that “the operative phrase [although its not clear in what sense it is operative] is loud and clear in [his] citation.” And there is something problematic about 1) ignoring Ender’s obviously well-doctrinally-founded point about the very different language used regarding abortion vs. capital punishment, and 2) introducing the notion that the Church has a history of supporting slavery, as if that were somehow analogous to the Church’s history of supporting capital punishment.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

QUOTE=dudleysharp;6881232]First, I am not interested only because I have likley read many of the studies which haven’t found for deterrence.

What they say. Did you know:

1. None of those said “executions deters no one”. They cannot.
2. Those studies did not find evidence of deterrence, but did not exclude deterrence.
3. None contradict the truism that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. The death penalty is the most severe negative outcome which a criminal may face.
4. Deterrence may have been too small a factor to measure, but not so small as to not exist

1-4 say pretty much the same thing. It’s basically like saying, “You can’t prove unicorns don’t exist.” Of course you can’t. Doesn’t make it any less true. People kill for various reasons. You have crimes of passion, which the death penalty will not prevent. You have serial killers, who are too egomaniacal to even consider the possibility of being caught. No deterrent there. You have crazy nutjobs like Andrea Yates who won’t be deterred no matter what. Then you have your general murders-spouse killings and the like, which are pre-meditated. This is the only group of people likely to be deterred by the death penalty and 99.9% of these people aren’t, because life in prison is just as bad if not worse than dying. The death penalty is not enough of a deterrent to justify the executions that take place in this country every year. Not even close.

Religious scholars have been aware of the imprisonment of prisoners going back at least 4000 years. As we all know, prisoners get out, escape, harm in prison and out, using cell phones and agents to assist in free world crimes.

Prisons have never been as effective as they are now. People can be isolated and separated from the general population. The abstract idea that people are using cell phones (which are contraband) to order “hits” and such is not enough to justify killing another human being as a pre-emptive strike.

Exactly, your conscience, not Catholic teachungs. Why does you conscience find against the execution of some for vile crimes?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. the people most harmed by execution are the families of the executed prisoners who have done nothing to deserve having their loved one murdered while others look on and cheer, leaving them unable to even properly grieve without being looked down upon and judged. It’s a terrible thing. Other people harmed by this travesty are of course the people in general, who lose a little bit more of their humanity and compassion each day when things like this are allowed to go on. it is state-sanctioned murder.

Believe me, the Church is always slow to change with the times. She WILL reverse her stance on the death penalty.

The Chuch is not to change with the times, but is to always proclaim the truth.

 

[Ender]

A quick word about these four: Retribution is necessarily primarily (though not exclusively) in God’s hands (“vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”).

God has his obligations and we have ours. The obligation for earthly retribution has been given -by God - to the State and the State “has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” It is a positive obligation of the State to punish the guilty, and for that punishment to be just its severity must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. Being either more or less severe fails the obligation of justice.

Rehabilitation is directed primarily to the good of the offender. Defense and deterrence are directed primarily to the good of society. All goods must be duly weighed in deciding upon an appropriate punishment for a given offense. Agree?

Yes but … this obfuscates the nature of punishment, the primary objective of which is retributive justice. As I said, it is the need for retribution that justifies punishment, not defense, deterrence, or rehabilitation. We may tailor a punishment to achieve those three goals but only to the extent that it remains just; we may not employ any punishment that is unjust regardless of how well it satisfies those secondary objectives.

perfectly just retribution does require death - and this is true for all sin. The retributive function of secular justice, however, does not require death as a strict matter of justice, otherwise the state would have an interest in executing most of us, e.g., those with hatred in their hearts (see the Sermon on the Mount).

You’re mixing apples and oranges here. The Church teaches both that God is the ultimate judge and will dispense perfect justice (heavily tempered, we hope, with mercy) but also that the State has its own, different, obligations. She has never suggested that the State has the right to execute everyone who sins even if those sins are mortal.

There are several questions here: is execution for murder a just punishment? Is retributive justice served if a lesser punishment is imposed? And finally, if retributive justice does not permit capital punishment then what moral objective does?

All secular sanctions are retributive, but are embraced specifically as a judicious form of retribution consonant with maintaining social order.

I would agree that there are times when it may be injudicious to execute someone. I think this is what JPII had in mind when he wrote EV 56.

A person who kills another intentionally and without justifying circumstances does deserve to die because of that crime. It does not follow that the state is required to execute him.

This is where we part company. If you can say that a person, by his actions, deserves to die then the just state has the obligation to give the person what he deserves. That is the very definition of justice. I don’t see how your statement wouldn’t lead to “just because a person deserves punishment it does not follow that the state is required to punish him.” The State has not just the right to punish but the obligation to do so, and further it has the obligation to impose a just punishment, that is, the punishment the crime deserves. If what is deserved is death then the State has the obligation to impose it.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

For every study you cited above, I can find 5 that say the opposite. Let me know if you’re interested.

Just one study would be great. Pick your favorite. Maybe Dudley hasn’t read it, who knows?

 

[Betterave]

God has his obligations and we have ours. The obligation for earthly retribution has been given -by God - to the State and the State “has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” It is a positive obligation of the State to punish the guilty, and for that punishment to be just its severity must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. Being either more or less severe fails the obligation of justice.

Yes, I agree (your point is rather obvious). But you’re missing the point that there is more than one way to commensurate the gravity of punishment to the gravity of the crime.

Yes but … this obfuscates the nature of punishment, the primary objective of which is retributive justice. As I said, it is the need for retribution that justifies punishment, not defense, deterrence, or rehabilitation. We may tailor a punishment to achieve those three goals but only to the extent that it remains just; we may not employ any punishment that is unjust regardless of how well it satisfies those secondary objectives.

Yes, but… you’re obfuscating that fact that secular penalties are never designed to create perfect (final) justice. Only God is competent for such a task.

You’re mixing apples and oranges here. The Church teaches both that God is the ultimate judge and will dispense perfect justice (heavily tempered, we hope, with mercy) but also that the State has its own, different, obligations. She has never suggested that the State has the right to execute everyone who sins even if those sins are mortal.

Yes, but the fact remains: in the past she has suggested different standards of application as being appropriate for the use of the death penalty. And she has never insisted that capital punishment is required for capital offenses (I certainly haven’t see that in a single one of your quotes so far), only that such a punishment is just. And remember: ‘P is just’ does not imply ‘not-P is not-just.’

There are several questions here: is execution for murder a just punishment? Is retributive justice served if a lesser punishment is imposed? And finally, if retributive justice does not permit capital punishment then what moral objective does?

1. Not necessarily, but sometimes, certainly, yes.
2. Retributive justice is always served - by God (though there is forgiveness for those who repent). The purpose of state-imposed punishments is not simply to achieve the end of retributive justice. The end of retributive justice, so far as this does pertain in a limited way to the state, *may *be adequately served with non-capital punishments (and in some cases it may not).
3. Surely this question has already been answered!

This is where we part company. If you can say that a person, by his actions, deserves to die then the just state has the obligation to give the person what he deserves. That is the very definition of justice. I don’t see how your statement wouldn’t lead to “just because a person deserves punishment it does not follow that the state is required to punish him.” The State has not just the right to punish but the obligation to do so, and further it has the obligation to impose a just punishment, that is, the punishment the crime deserves. If what is deserved is death then the State has the obligation to impose it.

Then please address my example: is the state under an obligation to execute those who, say, make obscene pornography?

Again, the justice of the punishment imposed by the state is to be judged within a framework that respects all four criteria, including rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence, and *not *just retribution. The other three can be disregarded only by God’s final judgment, when the time for rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence is past.

 

[wheels10]

Extending your approach to other aspects of life: could a Catholic serve as a prison warden? A guard? A judge? At one time Catholics were in fact precluded from serving in such capacities, but as Catholicism became the religion of the empire and Catholics became more involved in the actual business of running a state, this approached changed. The clergy was prohibited from executing punishment but it was accepted that this was a valid lay duty. **A just state imposes just punishments and there is no sin associated with those who carry out the duties that accompany such decisions. I wish to be treated justly and if I treat others justly I should have no fear that God will treat me otherwise, especially as it is God himself who set the just punishment for murder.**Ender

I’m glad you have this understanding. You choose to treat your neighbour with Justice, and this is Good. God will then also treat you with Justice.

I choose to treat my neighbour with Justice and Mercy and this is Good. God will then also treat me with Justice and Mercy.

 

[dudleysharp]

1-4 say pretty much the same thing. It’s basically like saying, “You can’t prove unicorns don’t exist.” Of course you can’t. Doesn’t make it any less true. People kill for various reasons…

No, deterrence is very different than unicorns. We have no proof that unicorns exists, yet we all know that the prospects of negative consequences deter behavior, inclusive of our own, every single day.

You have crimes of passion, which the death penalty will not prevent.

Obviously you haven’t read the studies.

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even “heat of the moment” murders can be prevented by deterrence. No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

You have serial killers, who are too egomaniacal to even consider the possibility of being caught. No deterrent there.

First, no one has ever said that deterrence is 100%. There is no doubt that serial murderers are deterred from committing some murders. They do everything they can not to get caught and many are very good at it, that is how they become serial murderers. When they are in a situation where they are not comfortable, they will pass on that vicitm to move onto another. No, the death penalty did not deter them, but even they tell us they fear death more than life.

You have crazy nutjobs like Andrea Yates who won’t be deterred no matter what…

I agree. I am only looking at those deterred, not those not deterred.

The death penalty is not enough of a deterrent to justify the executions that take place in this country every year. Not even close…

It is not deterrence which justifies the death penalty, it is the crime committed, going back to this current debate.

However, even the most minor of deterrence means alot, when saving innocent lives is the result.

With the recent 25 USA studies finding for deterrence, they range in the deterrent effect preventing from about 90-900 murders per year, nationwide, or about 0.5%-5% of the total of all murders.

For me, that is a huge number of lives saved, yet, it represents a very small fraction of the murder rate.

While no one can rationally or honestly say that the death penalty does not deter some, there will also never be any agreement on the measurement of the degree of that deterrence.

Some say that the burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty deters. Clearly, it is not. All prospects of a negative outcome deter some.

The burden of proof is with those who say that the most sever sanction - execution - is the only negative outcome that deters none. Rationally, as with history’s measure, it is a claim that cannot be defended.

Of course the death penalty deters.

The only questions, which will never be answered to anyone’s satisfaction, is “How much does it deter?”

Based upon the recent studies, deterrence has very little effect on net or gross murder rates, but that “little effect” represents saving 90-900 lives per year in the USA. Huge.

As Prof. Robert Blecker states:

"We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "

 

[dudleysharp]

you’re missing the point that there is more than one way to commensurate the gravity of punishment to the gravity of the crime.

I don’t think anyone is questioning that. Are they? It is not a matter of if there is more than one way, but if it is proper to all but exclude executions based upon an improper evaluation.

The issue is an improper limitation of a commensurate punishment - a limitation in sharp contrast to both previous Church teachings as well as biblical text which uses the word “shall” from Genesis forward in the context of when we should put murderers to death

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

you’re obfuscating that fact that secular penalties are never designed to create perfect (final) justice. Only God is competent for such a task.

No one on this forum has yet to proclaim man’s justice as perfect.

in the past she has suggested different standards of application as being appropriate for the use of the death penalty. And she has never insisted that capital punishment is required for capital offenses (I certainly haven’t see that in a single one of your quotes so far), only that such a punishment is just. And remember: ‘P is just’ does not imply ‘not-P is not-just.’

I believe that the following text, as within the clear meaning of “shall”, as first reviewed, above, is making a clear case that, with proper evidence, all murderers are to be executed.

This is in the specific context of when punishments should be limited and when they should not.

Numbers 35 NAB

31‘Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32‘You shall not take ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to live in the land before the death of the priest. 33‘So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 34‘You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel.’”

If anyone is aware of a scholarly evaluation of this text, please present it.

Then please address my example: is the state under an obligation to execute those who, say, make obscene pornography?

As noted, there appears to be a way out of execution for all crimes except murder.

Again, the justice of the punishment imposed by the state is to be judged within a framework that respects all four criteria, including rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence, and *not *just retribution.

That is the whole point of this debate. Of those 4 the Church has made it very clear that retribution, redress, balance, etc, all of which are part of retribution, is most important of them all.

A concentration of defense/deterrence, to the exlcusion of the others, as in EV, as amended into CCC, is improper. EV and CCC are both stating that based upon the wildly varying standards of secular prison security, or lack thereof, that the implementation of the death penalty shall be limited or ended, because it is not necessary for the defense of society.

What about the defense of established Church teachings, which contradict such a foundation?

In addition, executions are a stronger defense of society than is incarceration, making it more than curious why the Church is contradicting well known Church teachings and establishing a new standard which guarantees more innocents sacrificed so that more murderers shall live.

 

[pnewton]

I
2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

This is proof-texting. One can not do that with the Catechism any more than one can do that with the Bible. You deliberately omitted both the introduction that shows the quote is not from the Catechism and Genesis, but you also omitted a section that includes the antecedent for “this teaching.”

2260
The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

The Old Testament always considered** blood a sacred sign of life**. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

I believe that the following text, as within the clear meaning of “shall”, as first reviewed, above, is making a clear case that, with proper evidence, all murderers are to be executed.

“Shall” clearly applies as part of the instruction God gave to Noah in his covenant with him. This “shall” no more applies to Catholics than the instructions on how to make meat kosher.

31‘Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32‘You shall not take ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to live in the land before the death of the priest. 33‘So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 34‘You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel.’”

This applies to and is directed only at the nation of Israel at the time of the Mosaic Covenant.

The Catechism, for the one who is willing to be the student, is teaching history to lay the foundation of the current Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

That is the whole point of this debate. Of those 4 the Church has made it very clear that retribution, redress, balance, etc, all of which are part of retribution, is most important of them all.

What about the defense of established Church teachings, which contradict such a foundation?

It is not clear, not is there a necessary contradiction. Clear is when the Church says “retribution is the most important”, not a selected person, not matter how saintly. A contradiction is when the Church say x, then says not x, where *x *means the same thing.

 

[Ender]

This is proof-texting. One can not do that with the Catechism any more than one can do that with the Bible. You deliberately omitted both the introduction that shows the quote is not from the Catechism and Genesis,

I don’t understand your comment. Clearly this is directly from Genesis:

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

but you also omitted a section that includes the antecedent for “this teaching.”

The conclusion that “this teaching” refers to the simple explanation that “blood is a sacred sign of life” instead of to the quote from Genesis 9:5-6 is just not reasonable. Surely you cannot consider it reasonable to believe the writers found it important to add that it was necessary for all time for us to understand how the term blood was used in the Old Testament.

“Shall” clearly applies as part of the instruction God gave to Noah in his covenant with him. This “shall” no more applies to Catholics than the instructions on how to make meat kosher.

Not only is there no reason to believe that this instruction has ceased to apply to us, there is every reason to believe that it is very much in force. These very passages were the foundation for the lengthy explanation given in the Catechism of Trent for their support of capital punishment - which they called “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment. Nowhere have these passages been challenged or reinterpreted. They mean for us today what they have always meant - which is why they were included in the current Catechism. What else could their inclusion possibly mean?

It is not clear, nor is there a necessary contradiction. Clear is when the Church says “retribution is the most important”, not a selected person, no matter how saintly

But “retribution is the most important” is exactly what the Church has said.

The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)

Of the four objectives of punishment - retribution, rehabilitation, defense, deterrence - which is the only one that could possibly “redress the disorder”?

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. *(USCCB)

Is it not clear from this comment that the USCCB is equating retribution with “the restoration of the order of justice” and that this is exactly the same as “redress(ing) the disorder”?

The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. (R.M. Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L. [canon lawyer])

Retribution is undeniably the primary objective of punishment and it alone is what justifies punishment.

We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment (USCCB)

Ender

 

[Betterave]

I’m glad you have this understanding. You choose to treat your neighbour with Justice, and this is Good. God will then also treat you with Justice.

I choose to treat my neighbour with Justice and Mercy and this is Good. God will then also treat me with Justice and Mercy.

I think this is a red herring, for both you and Ender. Justice and mercy are both good. A legislator is not helped in his deliberations about capital punishment by noting that this is so. It has already been noted, e.g., that capital punishment, in some cases, may in fact be a merciful punishment.

 

[Ender]

there is more than one way to commensurate the gravity of punishment to the gravity of the crime.

This is a valid argument. Surely if there is more than one punishment that satisfies the obligation of justice for a “commensurately severe” penalty then capital punishment would not be necessary. Before getting into this, however, would you agree that if there is not another punishment that is commensurate with the gravity of murder then executions are not just appropriate but necessary?

secular penalties are never designed to create perfect (final) justice. Only God is competent for such a task.

So? Are we to disregard our own obligations to dispense justice because we cannot dispense it perfectly? If a person owes $2000 but can only repay $1000 should he only be fined $500 because, if he can’t repay it all, the amount he does repay doesn’t matter?

Yes, but the fact remains: in the past she has suggested different standards of application as being appropriate for the use of the death penalty.

Different standards? What do you refer to here?

And she has never insisted that capital punishment is required for capital offenses (I certainly haven’t see that in a single one of your quotes so far), only that such a punishment is just. And remember: ‘P is just’ does not imply ‘not-P is not-just.’

This is tied to the first point above so I’ll wait for your response to my question there before going on with this. Regarding “P and not-P”: “P is the winner” surely implies “not-P is the loser”; the structure of your argument is not valid in all cases.

Q: if retributive justice does not permit capital punishment then what moral objective does?
A: Surely this question has already been answered!

No, it has not, which is why I keep asking it.

is the state under an obligation to execute those who, say, make obscene pornography?

No. What point are you trying to make here?

Again, the justice of the punishment imposed by the state is to be judged within a framework that respects all four criteria, including rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence, and *not *just retribution. The other three can be disregarded only by God’s final judgment, when the time for rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence is past.

If a punishment is just it is valid (but not ideal) even if it fails in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation; if it succeeds in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation but is unjust it is invalid. It is justice that determines the validity of a punishment, not the three secondary objectives.

Ender